Shutsha v. NYPD Sgt. Cao

Background

Sekou Shutsha filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against NYPD Sergeant Ip, NYPD Sergeant Cao, and the New York City Police Department. He alleged that, on June 14, 2014, Sergeant Ip wrongfully searched his luggage while he was on a subway train arriving at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle Station in Manhattan, and that Sergeant Cao was present but did not stop the search. Shutsha sought damages for loss of freedom, reputational injury, and pain and suffering.

A criminal court later granted Shutsha's motion to suppress evidence from the search in January 2018, finding a lack of sufficient emergency circumstances to search his bags. Shutsha filed this federal action in December 2020. The Eastern District of New York transferred the action to the Southern District of New York, and this court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Screening and claims against the Police Department

Because Shutsha was detained and sued government defendants, the court screened the complaint under statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court's jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make the claims plausible.

The court concluded that the New York City Police Department is an agency of New York City and is not a proper defendant that can be sued separately. It stated that any claim against the Police Department must instead be brought against the City of New York. The court also explained that a claim against the City under Section 1983 would require facts showing both a city policy, custom, or practice and that this policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The complaint did not allege facts suggesting that a city policy caused the search.

Timeliness

The court determined that Shutsha's Fourth Amendment claim appeared barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims. Under federal accrual rules, the claim generally began when Shutsha knew or had reason to know of the injury. The court concluded that the search claim accrued on June 14, 2014, when the luggage was searched, rather than in January 2018, when the criminal court suppressed the evidence. Because Shutsha filed the federal complaint about six years after the search, the court stated that the claim appeared untimely and subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court nevertheless granted Shutsha an opportunity to amend. It directed him to provide facts showing why the limitations period should be extended through equitable tolling, which can apply when a person diligently pursues rights but an extraordinary circumstance prevents timely filing. The court also referenced certain statutory tolling provisions under New York law.

Disposition

The court stated that claims against the New York City Police Department must be dismissed and instructed Shutsha not to name that agency in an amended complaint. It granted Shutsha leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order, requiring him to identify the defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, state the relief sought, and address timeliness and equitable tolling. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Shutsha, stated that no summons would issue at that time, and warned that the complaint would be dismissed as untimely if he failed to amend within the allowed period without showing good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.